It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 
Say it, I don't mind. I stand by my suspicion that you are a plant. Again I say nobody can be so stupid as to believe that a 747 hit the pentagon that day, let alone say that these guys convinced you of it. Anyone with a brain can see that this group of people doesn't want the truth to come out. They want blind obedience, and if that won't work, confusion. You'd have us believe you are new to the discussion and based on 'the facts' as Wack calls them, you still stand in the middle? Really, you expect me to believe that?
"




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Who said anything about missiles or holograms besides you?

You just had to bring that up eh?You brought that up just to try and make it like anyone who doesn't believe a plane hit the pentagon believes in those things.Good way to try and ruin people's credibility,that's what shills do.Can't prove people wrong so you try an dis-credit them lol WEAK.

Disinfo hard at work.

The reason people don't believe a plane hit the pentagon is because no one could have flown that flight path especially a guy who has NEVER flown a 757 in his life!No simulator can train you for hijacking,killing people and crashing a plane!

And then you have all the witnesses that place the plane no where near the light poles.

Then you have the witnesses that lied.

Then you have the hole size.

Then you have the lack of bodies,luggage,seats,engines,wings normal things you would find at a plane crash.

Then there's the footage of the "plane" hitting the pentagon.Does it look like a plane in the footage to you?Please..

And how did the "plane" get so low to the ground and fly perfectly straight across like it shows in the footage?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 



Disinfo hard at work.

I'll say:


The reason people don't believe a plane hit the pentagon

Yes they do. Really. Its common knowledge.


is because no one could have flown that flight path especially a guy who has NEVER flown a 757 in his life!

Well, make up your mind - its either no one or not this guy. Either way, you have emburdened yourself with proving that the path was impossible or PROVING that it was not POSSIBLE to have been flown by the terrorist.


No simulator can train you for hijacking,killing people and crashing a plane!

Uh, hate to inform you but 9/11 was not the first time somone hijacked a plane or killed someone. As for crashing, simulators primary purpose is to pretty much show you what makes a plane crash.


And then you have all the witnesses that place the plane no where near the light poles.

No, all we got is a couple of
's with some home videos claiming that they have some witnesses.


Then you have the witnesses that lied.

That is to say, witnesses that contradict the conspiracy fantasies.


Then you have the hole size.

Hole? How can you have a hole without a plane??


Then you have the lack of bodies,luggage,seats,engines,wings normal things you would find at a plane crash.

I think what you mean to say is "I googled images and Pentagon and couldn't find any photos of luggage". Research complete. Conclusions drawn.


Then there's the footage of the "plane" hitting the pentagon.Does it look like a plane in the footage to you?Please..

Nope, wasn't that good of video. Too bad. Proves that the Pentagon doesn't spend a lot of money on surviellance equipment.


And how did the "plane" get so low to the ground and fly perfectly straight across like it shows in the footage?

Uh, thats kind of like what they were designed to do? Get low and go straight, thats pretty important in the landing process.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


You need some more education? I have a nice video that someone made that explains THIS part of your misconception, quite well....it is WORTH the 10 minutes..for our education, and enlightenment.

First, based on this comment:


Originally posted by GodIsPissed
And then you have all the witnesses that place the plane no where near the light poles.


PLEASE put your thinking cap on:




DO you see, now, why when you say:


Then you have the witnesses that lied.


NO....they were mistaken....OR, their perspective and THUS, the terms they used to describe what they witnessed, is the problem...in interpretation.


Capisce?

Oh, one more example, for illustration. Bear with me, it's something most can relate to, easily.

Do you have a favorite "side of the bed"?

If you say, "Yes, it's the left."

Then, I asked..."Which "left"? Facing the bed, standing at its foot? OR, the other way around, when you're laying in it??"

See??? Perspective.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Again I say nobody can be so stupid as to believe that a 747 hit the pentagon that day...


You're entirely correct....a Boeing 747 DID NOT hit the Pentagon! Ever!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Remedylane
 
Say it, I don't mind. I stand by my suspicion that you are a plant. Again I say nobody can be so stupid as to believe that a 747 hit the pentagon that day, let alone say that these guys convinced you of it. Anyone with a brain can see that this group of people doesn't want the truth to come out. They want blind obedience, and if that won't work, confusion. You'd have us believe you are new to the discussion and based on 'the facts' as Wack calls them, you still stand in the middle? Really, you expect me to believe that?
"



Nah, im above insulting.. You are passionate about what you believe in.. Thats fine.. But I have a right to my opinion.. Im a plant.. Who was I planted by?? Just so I know? If you wanna take a look at my postings since ive joined go ahead.. Take a look at the first thread I posted in.. Thats why I signed up after LURKING here for awhile. It wasnt because of a 9-11 conspiracy thread. Once again, I agree, certain people dont want the truth to come out. But the fact remains that planes hit the WTC, and the Pentagon.. Were we told the truth about how it happened, who did it, and why? Probably not.. Whats so hard to believe thats my stance?? I think Weedwacker and just about anyone else posting in this thread can understand my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

As far certain people convincing me of a plane hitting the Pentagon, no one convinced me.. The evidence did.. Ive read all the theories for years and bought into a lot of them. But the more I read, and the more I research on my own i am finding what I believe to be the truth.. Doesnt make me right, doesnt make me wrong.. Its simply my opinion..



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Who said anything about missiles or holograms besides you?

You just had to bring that up eh?You brought that up just to try and make it like anyone who doesn't believe a plane hit the pentagon believes in those things.Good way to try and ruin people's credibility,that's what shills do.Can't prove people wrong so you try an dis-credit them lol WEAK.

Disinfo hard at work.

The reason people don't believe a plane hit the pentagon is because no one could have flown that flight path especially a guy who has NEVER flown a 757 in his life!No simulator can train you for hijacking,killing people and crashing a plane!

And then you have all the witnesses that place the plane no where near the light poles.

Then you have the witnesses that lied.

Then you have the hole size.

Then you have the lack of bodies,luggage,seats,engines,wings normal things you would find at a plane crash.

Then there's the footage of the "plane" hitting the pentagon.Does it look like a plane in the footage to you?Please..

And how did the "plane" get so low to the ground and fly perfectly straight across like it shows in the footage?





I apologize, I was not directing the holograms or missle quote at any of you guys in particular, but those are popular explanations.. So I ask you, what do YOU believe hit the Pentagon? Seriously, im curious..

As far as all of your other points, they have been covered in the thread numerous times.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Thank you!

Do you have a link to a site where video and/or still photos of the aftermath can be viewed?

So, in any event, if the phantom jet wings only penetrated the concrete to a depth of a couple feet, should not the alleged jetliner wings have penetrated the Pentagon wall at least that far? Are a phantom jet's wings more massive or built of a material that would penetrate concrete deeper than the wings of a jetliner (not to mention the engines mounted on those wings)?

No member of our resident gang of would-be debunkers has been able to explain this anomaly.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Thank you!

Do you have a link to a site where video and/or still photos of the aftermath can be viewed?

So, in any event, if the phantom jet wings only penetrated the concrete to a depth of a couple feet, should not the alleged jetliner wings have penetrated the Pentagon wall at least that far? Are a phantom jet's wings more massive or built of a material that would penetrate concrete deeper than the wings of a jetliner (not to mention the engines mounted on those wings)?



No member of our resident gang of would-be debunkers has been able to explain this anomaly.


Will this nonesense never end!? - a jets wings are swept back and thinner than an airliner's - which are of course blunter and full of fuel which exploded on impact.

edit on 19-1-2011 by JohhnyBGood because: rearranged text



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
"So I ask you, what do YOU believe hit the Pentagon? Seriously, im curious.."

How am I suppose to know?

I know that people have hijacked planes before.

But..

13 witnesses place the plane on a different path than the light poles!
Let me know if you find any witnesses that place the plane at the light poles...that are on video..and not just a piece of paper!

www.youtube.com...

Lloyd England the cab driver who's cab supposedly got hit by a light pole says it was planned and that he was "in it" and that "we" meaning him and the planners "came up on the bridge together!You can't get more blunt than that!

www.youtube.com...

Lack of plane,bodies,luggage,hole size,Llyod's wife an FBI agent,Lloyd's neighbor just happen to be there taking pictures..just coincidence?

As for the plane hitting the pentagon.
There's no way the soft aluminum fuselage that a bird could take out went through all that concrete...like it shows here!

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

So had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto..

It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 757 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit.

The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

With the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 757 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air

There's no way Hani Hanjour was able to make the turning decent at high speeds to come down within inches off the ground(like it shows in the footage) without crashing beforehand and with no help from air traffic control!It's not like he could just look down and see the ground.

Roosevelt Roberts says he heard the explosion,ran out and saw the plane flying away!
www.youtube.com...

So how long from the time of the explosion to the time you saw the plane"?

"From the time explosion hit..till I ran out side and saw..it's a loading dock and you can run right out to the edge to look out and look off,and um..you see the flickering lights and uh saw the area and then real quick I realized it was some sort of ATTACK and there was gonna be a counter-measure with it."  Key word ATTACK!.Straight from Roosevelt's mouth!

What about Lloyd England?What did Lloyd mean when he said "it was planned".."i'm in it"...WE CAME ACROSS THE HIGHWAY TOGETHER"-Lloyd England "You and their event"?Craig renke "That's right"-Lloyd England Why was their no mention of terrorists or Arabs when they were talking about the people who "planned" it?

And what evidence and witness testimony do you have to prove a 757 hit that pentagon?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 




I mean I get it.. And we have been through it over and over and over.. People are saying scientifically that its not possible that a plane went through the Pentagon. Ok.. Well then what could, scientifically????? I wouldnt imagine there are many scenarios in which a hole like that could be created in the wall.. So tell me, what are the other options?? "How am I supposed to know" isnt a very good argument.. Since everyone is getting all scientific, and everyone is a scientist, then give me some scenarios that could play out in which the hole could have been created..

Could a missle??? I mean a missle isnt made out of much stronger material than an airliner.. Of course a missle has explosives in it.. Ill be honest, im not an expert on how missles work..

So if a missle could create a hole, then why couldnt a 270,000 lb aircraft carrying 11,000 gallons of jet fuel traveling in excess of 500 mph create a hole??

I know, its the same argument, so lets forget that. Please, one of you guys tell me what could have caused the hole??

edit on 19-1-2011 by Remedylane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Sorry for the short answer because I do agree that a plane did not hit the pentagon but I would just like to point out that scientifically, nothing is impossible.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
"I actually to have a few pics of the Swiss Air MD-11 (LARGER than the Boeing 757) as its itty-bitty parts were being "re-assembled" as part of the accident investigation to determine cause of crash:"

Thanks for the photos. By the way, where are the photos of the reassembled airplanes which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA? Ooops, silly me...the planes were obviously "atomized" and could not be reassembled.



"..and yet you prefer to listen to those con artists behind those damned fool web sites rather than the people who were actually there."

It sure beats listening to the resident con artists who camp out on this site for the purpose of keeping humanity in a perpetual darkness. At least the conspiracy con artists are entertaining, for the most part believe in their convictions and do not go out of their way to sell you an overplayed song and dance.
edit on 19-1-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: Must Be Filled Out? And what if I don't?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Remedylane
 


It could have been a smaller plane.One with easier flying capabilities.

I could guess but I doesn't mean I'm right.It looked like a missile to me.

They confiscated over 80 tapes but only produced the 10 sec or so clip that shows the "object" come into view for a minute paused for a photo op then continued on to the pentagon.Didn't look like no plane to me.And did you notice how only the tip of the object was noticeable?..coincidence of course.

Back to the tapes..Where are the rest of them?Why don't they release them?

So many things wrong with the pentagon scenario alone.And that's just one aspect of 9/11!That's not including all the BS at the towers!I won't get into that here but you know what I'm talking about.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
When are you guys going to get it?
They only reassemble the pieces when there is a question as to why a plane crashed.
Actually very few planes have been reassembled as compared to the number of crashes.
Given the number of witnesses who saw the plane and the circumstances (hijacked) there was no need.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I honestly don't even know why this is still being debated.

757 = approx 125ft wide

Pentagon hole = approx 16 feet wide w/ blast scarring on either side

Surely you jest because you're telling me a 757 can turn the World Trade towers into a pile of dust and molten steel but only leave a 16 foot hole in the pentagon? This thread should be locked because the fact is that it was not a commercial passenger airliner that struck the pentagon on 9/11



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jacktherer
 

Jack, I'd like to star your post. Fine, clearheaded thinking there. But, there's no star icon to star, so unless you are banned, I'd like to know why I can't activate the star missing icon?? (star appeared after I responded/refreshed)

Good post. Nothing like being succinct.

edit on 19-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by youngdrodeau
 



Dude,are you really trying to paint the picture that planes & all their massive parts are too fragile to withstand a crash without being atomized?Even though we can easily observe that that isn't the case by looking at every other plane crash.


Do you even KNOW what "atomized" means??? Doesn't seem so......

Why not look it up. And, no......aluminum isn't "atomized" just from an impact...even the incredibly high velocity impacts of 9/11. It breaks. Shatters. Shreds. Fragments. Just like most solids will.

LIQUIDS can "atomize"...which is actually a bit of misnomer.

Oh, and "every other plane crash"??

I see....you are an expert then, are you? On EVERY other airplane crash, and their circumstances? Do you also know what happens when there is a fire, post-crash? AND, you understand fully the differences that velocity, angle of impact and type of surface impacted changes the size, distribution and ultimate fate of the various components, as they cycle through the impact scenario????

Since you're an expert, then you're well aware of at least two other high-speed airliner impacts, for comparison?

PSA 1771
SwissAir 111

PSA, into the ground. Swiss Air, into the ocean. I actually to have a few pics of the Swiss Air MD-11 (LARGER than the Boeing 757) as its itty-bitty parts were being "re-assembled" as part of the accident investigation to determine cause of crash:





The black framework is NOT part of the original airplane. It is there only as a means of holding all of the pieces in the proper locations, relative to each other.

I think a LOT of the so-called "9/11 truthers" here, and elsewhere, would do well to go out into the real world, and get some real world experience, before spouting off as if they "know" something...and showing utter ignorance at every turn.



edit on 19 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Weed man, you seem to be hanging yourself with your own real world experience, and showing utter ignorance at every turn. To quote you, my friend. Now, you show these detailed pictures of itty bitty pieces of aircraft, being re-assembled for the Swiss air MD-11. Good right? Answer all us Truthers this: Why weren't all the itty bitty bits of jet liners from all 4 9/11 jet evaporation sites, collected and kept for the same kind of re-assembly? Teacher, teach me. Help me, help you. You jump, I jump. Wishin', and hopin' and prayin',,, Cheers.
oh, by the way you made reference in a post for me, "to educate yourself man". Well, ..." man destroys God...woman inherits the earth.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jacktherer
 


LIE. Lie you get from the "9/11 conspiracy" websites.


Pentagon hole = approx 16 feet wide w/ blast scarring on either side .


Total width of the breach on the impact side, prior to the collapse of the upper floors about 25-30 minutes afterwards was WELL more than "16 feet"!!!

A visual composite, with the airplane super-imposed for scale. Photo is, obviously, AFTER upper floors collapsed into the breach. The MAJORITY of the airplane mass is the range from engine-to-engine. Wings progressively thinner and lighter out towards the tips. RIGHT wing caused more window damage....mass of fuel mostly. The metal and composites of wing structure mostly shattered. Close up photos of the building shows marks on the columns, where wings impacted, but not strong enough to go THROUGH the concrete.



MORE Truth:


The following annotated photos show exactly the locations of impact damage on the Pentagon E-ring facade. The outer limestone facade was breached between column lines 8 and 18, producing a hole spanning approximately 96 feet.


www.911review.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by gr82m8okdok
 


Oh, boy......

Hamlet:
"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
"

(That is said in dripping sarsam, BTW...as the great bard wrote it....)....

....for, verily, it is YOU who writeth:


.... you show these detailed pictures of itty bitty pieces of aircraft, being re-assembled for the Swiss air MD-11. Good right? Answer all us Truthers this: Why weren't all the itty bitty bits of jet liners from all 4 9/11 jet evaporation sites, collected and kept for the same kind of re-assembly? Teacher, teach me. Help me, help you. You jump, I jump...



Stop, think, research and LEARN!!!

WHY does the NTSB (in the USA) or any other investigating agency "investigate" an a transportation accident???

Do I have to spoon feed that answer to you? Or, will you try to improve your knowledge, and your lot in life, and learn by looking it up for yourself??



edit on 19 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join